Hillary For.............

Pat Ryan

Everybody's been a bit tight jawed around Chez Ryan for the past month or so, and the doggies are Hillary_clinton_250_hmedium hiding under the bed. Last night was particularly fraught with peril as the tonedeaf Boneheads that run the national NARAL office decided to piss off a huge chunk of their base yesterday by endorsing Obama despite the fact that Clinton has been pretty clear that her campaign efforts would be going through the last primary and that said prinmary is only a couple of weeks away. 

Now, I converted to Obama about ten seconds after Edwards droppoed out and have since actaully come to respect and admire my newest BFF. My lovely wife Christine, however is totally out there for Clinton, working with the Oregon campaign such as it is and scooping up supporters out here in the HD that feel a bit marginalized as minority groups will.

A couple of weeks ago, the Hillary Kidz in the HD did a fundraiser and put up around $4000 during an evening of good food and conversation. Christine has, in addition, been working hard to build bridges between the Dem party and the Asian community around the Clinton campaign.

What do the Asian community and the Hillary supporters in HD have in common?

Well,they are intelligent, aware, and were not too visible in '04. They are pretty clear that Clinton will not be the nominee, but they believe her to be deserving of some respect for the warrior that she is.

So, regarding real tangible respect:

Drop this vice-president idea RFN. David Gergen and the lovely Christine have similar opinions on this one with the former suggesting that Obama might feel the need for a food taster, while Christine feels that Obama might be intimidated. So there's your equal opportunity dissing but both make the same point. If Clinto were to be put in the #2 position, it would be a position stripped of real power.

1) Send Harry Reid back to the Miner's Shack in Nevada and get a Senate Majority Leader who has the stones to thump some heads. And I don't wanna hear about  misogyny. The charcterization is one that she and her campaign are promoting consistently on the trail.

OR

2)How about the upcoming Supreme Court vacancies. Them's tenured for life.

Whichever way we go, we'd be discussing Real Long term Power and acknowledging our many debts to a woman who's gone through a lot of different Hells in her career, and to her supporters who continue to support her with eyes wide open.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Pat,

    Love your writing. You should do more. Tell Christine that unfortunately for you, me, and Obama she must be doing some good for Hilary because the poll from Survey USA has Asians in Oregon voting for Hillary by 51-42.

  • backbeat, woman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Used to think she should be on SCOTUS, but not after that "whitey won't vote for Obama" crap.

    No, as a woman, I'm quite happy with her in the Senate. She should stay there.

    VP - no way and it is a step down from Senator (and I don't want her anywhere near the WH).

  • mkd (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Negative on the Supreme Court nod. I can't imagine a quicker way to suck this country into a drawn-out months-long psycho-drama. Double ug.

    However, if she wants to be Majority Leader I say go for it. It'll be tough winning back into the fold all the Senators she's alienated (and who have alienated her), but it's the perfect way to refurbish her image. Show a little class, make a few jokes, swing some backroom deals and bam- she's the Grand Matriarch of the Senate for like 20 years. I can live with that.

  • (Show?)

    Nice post, Pat. Chortling still.

    I'd say that Majority Leader is far better exercise of power than Veep (though LBJ, to his credit exchanged the latter for the former for the good of the party and the election of JFK). I'd prefer to have her in the senate--her success as a senator have been widely acknowledged. Weirdly, she's acted in sort of the same post-partisan manner Obama champions. They could end up being close allies.

  • (Show?)

    I agree with the Majority Leader gig. In fact, I think she could've had it a month ago in a walk if she'd agreed to drop out in exchange for a hand up to Reid's office (which rumor has it he's vacating anyway). Now, I think she may still be in a relatively strong position because Durbin and Dodd are likely to duke it out and Hillary may have enough pull win a 3-way race without a clear successor. Time will tell. Still, I like the idea of Senate leadership for her. Not so excited about the SCOTUS idea.

  • nochickenhawk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why should Clinton be considered for Senate Majority Leader? First of all she is the junior senator from NY. She hasn't been in the senate long enough to hold a committee chairmanship let alone be the majority leader. Frankly Clinton doesn't appear to be that well liked in the senate so how the hell would she get anything accomplished with 99 mega sized egos? This is a good time for the democratic party to de-horn both Clinton's--no mas, no mas! She can go on perpetual book tours with more ghost written books and he can continue to perpetually lower the dignity of the Office of President by seeking lobbying shills from any and all sources.

  • backbeat, woman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Majority leader? The woman who voted to hand bush another loaded gun re: Iran?

    NO THANK YOU!!!

    How any woman with children could even consider voting for her is beyond me.

  • Acronym Hater (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Maybe I should know, but I don't. And it's bugging me.

    What the hell does "HD" stand for?

    High Desert? House District? Hot Dog? Hillary Detester? Haughty Diatribe?

  • (Show?)

    I agree that I don't want her to be Majority Leader...no way. Too much ego.

    I wouldn't mind seeing her as Secretary of Health and Human Services...that'd be OK with me. Or maybe Attorney General. Frankly, though, I'd rather have John Edwards to be considered first for either position.

    So why doesn't she stay where she's at -- a vocal, committed junior senator from New York? That's nothing to sneeze at.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't see Hillary being in a subordinate role as VP, with the job of supporting an Obama administration. I can see her as HHS Director, fashioning a national health plan. I can see her as governor of New York. She's looking for an executive position. Continuing in the legislative branch may not be what she's looking for.

  • backbeat, woman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    AG - not in favor of that either. Can't in my wildest dreams imagine her going after the bush crooks when she has been enabling them all of these years.

    NY Senator will be just fine.

  • (Show?)

    the poll from Survey USA has Asians in Oregon voting for Hillary by 51-42.

    John, I'm sure that she'd be the last to try to take credit for that, but we should see additional volunteers and donors brought into the state party and the local HD.

    That's House District Acronymn Hater, but some of your suggestions sounded even better. I especially liked Haughty Diatribe......I do those often and poorly.

    Pat Ryan--Hater of <i<excessive keystrokes<="" i=""> and trying to get Spellchecker to work in Typepad........

  • mkd (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't think people should freak out about Hillary as Senate Majority Leader- if she gives up her presidential ambitions, that is.

    Every questionable move she's made over the last few years- the War in Iraq, classifying the Iranian Army as a terrorist organization, and that dumbass out-of-left field flag burning amendment have all been about positioning herself for a presidential run. Once you remove that I actually think you’ve got a pretty competent progressive politician.

    People do all kinds of crazy stuff when they're in lust- but most of us go on to live full, productive, sane lives after we get splashed with the cold water of reality. I don't see why Hillary couldn't be that way.

  • backbeat, woman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Once you remove that I actually think you’ve got a pretty competent progressive politician.

    The DLC is the enemy of progressives and populists everywhere. Senator Clinton, renounce/denounce them, quit your leadership position at the DLC, then we can talk. Until then, you're just fine as NY's junior senator.

  • (Show?)

    Pat,

    What kind of lousy husband are you? Of course Christine deserves credit for the poll results. Haven't you been to husband training school?

  • (Show?)

    Pat

    I suspect you are right. Sen. Clinton will meet with the powers that be and negotiate her withdrawal. I think she'd make a fine Senate majority leader.

  • ligedog (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why all the hating on Harry Reid? He's got a majority of exactly one and a Republican party that filibusters everything (which has not garnered any press attention). The guys a good majority leader and knows how to get things done. I haven't really seen any examples of Clinton demonstrating legislative leadership. I guess if there was a desire for a Frist like figurehead . . .

  • Alberto Borges (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton will be our next president. Alberto

  • mkd (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ligedog,

    The fact that Reid hasn't made more of an issue over Republican obstructionism is one of the reasons I'm ready for him to move on. The Republicans are behaving like rank hypocrites while simultaneously blocking an agenda the majority of Americans support. Come on Harry, step up to the plate and knock that batting practice fastball out of the park.

  • nochickenhawk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Alberto:

    Presidente de Mexico?

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think the Hillary haters should be a bit more careful:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004411946_harrop14.html

    ...oh, and the ego crack about Clinton? haha. You meant Obama, right "Sweetie?"

  • (Show?)

    Katy, as I said elsewhere but buried in other stuff, I see your point about the word "sweetie", but wonder how you think it weighs against the word "obliterate", as in 60-70 million Iranians?

  • nochickenhawk (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I"m sorry-"be a bit more careful" about:

    o Running for cover and dodging sniper fire at the airport in Bosnia? o Obliterating Iran and innocent civilians? o Not reading available intelligence reports but still voting to enable the "Village Idiot" to invade Iraq? o Attending White House meetings and remaining silent instead of questioning Bush/Cheney policies? o Running ads in Ohio and West Virginia that imply that Obama is a muslim? o Working with media outlets to smear Obama to death about the idiot Rev. Wright? o Having surrogates insinuate that Obama was a drug dealer in his youth? o Spreading the suggestion early on in the campaign that Obama was not black enough?

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As someone who is a strong supporter of Senator Clinton - I would urge you all to tone it down for the sake of the your candidate and the election in November. If you want Obama to win in November you really should stop alienating the millions of Americans who continue to support her. The above comment illustrates exactly what the article is warning Obama supporters against.

  • (Show?)

    Katy,

    I'm happy to do so, but it cuts both ways, especially if I am to do as I think you and many who think as you do would ask, and not assume Hillary is out unless and until she is out. Is that not the first kind of respect you want?

    If she's still seriously in the race, and especially if you think there's a chance that she could be the nominee because you believe that the arguments about "electability" could and should and may sway the superdelegates, exactly your point is going to run the other way.

    As the op-ed you link says, Obama can't win without women, older folks, white working people. Of course Obama gets significant proportions of those categories, though it varies by state. Conversely, Hillary, if nominated, won't be able win without major black turnout, younger folks, the newly D independents Obama has attracted, even the relatively highly educated.

    In either case this is saying no more than that the nominee is going to need to unite the party behind him or her in order to win.

    So I just hope that in other, more pro-Hillary contexts, you are making the same point to your fellow supporters, a lot of whom are willing to circulate incredibly obnoxious and false BS about Obama.

    Obama has never swept me off my feet; neither has Clinton. It was my clear intention not to vote in the presidential primary. There were aspects of the arguments of pro-Hillary feminists that I sometimes found persuasive, and moments of gross media misogyny that had me leaning that way a little. Hillary's populist campaign produced cognitive dissonance for me -- it just didn't square with what I know of her record or with her basing her experience claims in the WJ Clinton administration, of which I was deeply critical. So while in many cases she was saying the right things, and while her fighting message had an appeal at times (I still worry that Obama may reach out so far that he will fall out of the boat on some things), I could never get to the point of feeling confident that she'd changed. So I had the absention position.

    Hillary lost my vote, Obama didn't win it. It's just one vote. But I don't think I'm the only one by any means for whom that's true.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris, I have yet to read a Clinton supporter make a comment about what Obama should do after he loses the election. I've yet to read a Clinton supporter say his "ego" is too big to be majority leader. My point is simply (and I think it's a really really important one) that if your side wins the Primary, PLEASE, for the good of the Party and to be sure we take back the White House, PLEASE don't make the folks who voted for the other Democrat feel alienated. It will cost all of us in the end.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hello, Obama supporters? Aren't you concerned about this:

    http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dissing the other candidate seems to be the dynamic of elections, and it would be nice to get past it, but I don't see that happening while this continues. This thing is really over. What will make unity difficult is not the hurling of trash talk on these blogs, but the scorched earth policy before the Clinton campaign finally decides the debt is too big, the unpaid bills and staff, and there is nothing left to contest. It's really about Hillary's willingness to face the reality and join the team or wait it out, hoping for an Obama loss and coming back in 2012.

  • (Show?)

    Katy,

    With all due respect, the mention of Clinton's ego is what my impression of her is based upon the reality of this campaign. I came into this contest with an open mind and it's not that I don't respect her on a lot of other levels. I do respect her leadership and her commitment, but I don't know how she would do as Majority Leader with Obama in the White House.

    So far, she has appeared to feel like she deserves it over him (i.e., suggesting that he take the VP slot despite the fact that he was ahead in every single count) for reasons that are not clear. She appears to be trying nearly every tactic, including race baiting, to win, which makes me, again, believe that she thinks she deserves it even though she has failed to win the vote of millions of Americans.

    In short, if she treated Barack Obama with a greater level of respect, instead of like recalcitrant school boy who has stolen her lunch, then I would believe that she would be incredibly qualified to rule another significant branch of our government.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    From the Seattle Times editorial linked by Katy:

    "So Obama partisans do not help their cause by willfully misrepresenting Clinton's reference to 'hard-working Americans, white Americans' as racist rather than as a poorly worded observation made in a state of utter exhaustion."

    OK, let's go with the "poorly worded observation". Hillary Clinton has been taking lots of flak about seemingly equating "hard working" with "white". Given the record of HRC and her spouse, starting in Arkansas, I think the idea that they're some sort of latter-day George Wallaces is absurd. So "poorly worded observation" it is.

    Now let's ask Katy about Obama's equally poorly worded observation (as I would describe it) about rural folks clinging to guns and religion. Or rather, let's first ask Katy: would you agree that it WAS just that--a poorly worded observation--rather than an elitist blast? And if you DO agree that what Obama said was just a poorly worded observation, are you at all disturbed that Senator Clinton flogged the "elitist" charge repeatedly as a wedge issue with a particular demographic group?

    "Bittergate" was flogged not just by the Clinton campaign itself, but in the pro-Clinton blogosphere as well. Have a look here, for example. Not pretty. "Bittergate" was seized upon by Hillary Clinton and supporters (some supporters, anyway) as a stick to beat Obama with. They seized that stick because her campaign was foundering.

    You wrote: As someone who is a strong supporter of Senator Clinton - I would urge you all to tone it down for the sake of the your candidate and the election in November. If you want Obama to win in November you really should stop alienating the millions of Americans who continue to support her. The above comment illustrates exactly what the article is warning Obama supporters against.

    And you are absolutely correct: stop alienating the other candidate's supporters. What I would add is simply this: it cuts both ways. Reconciliation is not a one-way street. What I have seen written explicitly by some Clinton supporters, however, are words to this effect: OK, well, Obama has probably won, but if you want our support in November, you have to come ask our forgiveness. That's not reconciliation, that's spite. The candidates themselves bear comparable responsibility. In that last (ABC) debate, when the moderators started in on Obama with the Wright/bittergate/flag pin garbage, Senator Clinton could have said, hey guys, zip it, let's have a substantive debate. She didn't. She was content to watch Obama get roasted. Likewise, Obama had the chance in previous debates to tell the moderators to treat Clinton better, but he didn't rise to the occasion, either. Pretty sad. No white hats worn here.

    There are some folks who post nasty stuff about Hillary Clinton to this blog. There are some Obama supporters who delight in savaging Clinton. I hope I am not one of them. Frankly, I would have preferred to see her as president back in 1993-94 rather than her spouse.

  • (Show?)

    Oh, and one more thing. I hope, Katy, that you decide on your own who you want to vote for in November based upon what you believe in, who best matches your vision for America, not because someone pissed you off in a blog conversation.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hello, Obama supporters? Aren't you concerned about this:

    http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/

    Folks, this is an item about Obama talking about "Christian good deeds", crudely put. (I'm not Christian so I may be phrasing that all wrong.) As for whether I'm concerned, a bit but not a lot. I haven't heard Barack Obama using Christianity as a stick to beat anyone with, or flogging it as a badge of superiority, the way that the GOP Christo-fascists have been doing for several decades. I'd prefer that Obama not use religious imagery at all...ditto for all the other candidates.

  • (Show?)

    Hello, Obama supporters? Aren't you concerned about this:

    http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/

    No. He's appealing to a constituent group the same way candidates have lit targeted to environmentalists, small business owners, African Americans, Asians, and the like.

    <hr/>

    I heard tonight on the news that Senator Clinton canceled all her events in Oregon on Saturday. Odd?

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Frankly I like it when a progressive can authentically use Jesus talk to explain their values. Many people are progressive because they are Christian, and for too long the field of faith has been monopolized by the fundamentalist exclusionist haters, and the people who twist and misuse Christianity to fit an extremist agenda. I admire the work of Jim Wallis in makng the case for progressive change through his Christian evangelical values. Growing up it was people like MLK and Thomas Merton, and Daniel Berrigan, who taught me the values of peace and justice from the best of the Christian biblical and spiritual traditions.

    It's notable that Chuck Hagee, McCain's pal and mentor, has said that the real Jesus is not the Jesus of the beatitudes or the Sermon on the Mount, but the wrathful, powerful judge of the Book of Revelation. This is the same guy who wants to nuke Iran to start the battle of Armageddon.

    A politician cannot speak to who they are without speaking to their deepest values and from what they are derived. In Obama's case where he's been trashed by e-mails claiming he's some kind of secret Muslim terrorist, it's even more important.

    (McLatchy News org. has done an investigation of the source of that e-mail. Turns out it's a Clinton surrogate/supporter.)

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jenni: "I heard tonight on the news that Senator Clinton canceled all her events in Oregon on Saturday. Odd?"

    That is odd. I thought she was making a real push here. Maybe they are writing off Oregon.

  • aghast (unverified)
    (Show?)

    'Obama talking about "Christian good deeds", '

    That's an understatement. the article is about how Obama's Kentucky HQ is like going into a fire and brimstone church, and the piece of Obama lit features a picture of Obama at a grandiose church pulpit with the words: "FAITH. HOPE.CHANGE. BO for Pres. My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work." On the other side it talks about how he "found a beckoning of his spirit and welcomed Jesus Christ into his life." and features a family photo noting names, ages, and that the family is "active in their church in Chicago."

    It looks like Obama is running for Evangelist-in-Chief. Why doesn't he doesn't use this lit in Oregon? Will the real Barack Obama please stand up? Which Obama did you vote for? http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks for the personal concern, Kristin. I make my decsions as a grown-up but it seems you've managed to reduce me to an emotional wreck, making my decisions based on something someone wrote on Blueoregon. ...and here I am trying to appeal to the good nature of my fellow Dems?

    if you read through my past posts you'll see that I've always said I'd vote whichever candidate wins the primary. I'm only trying to make sure the Obama folks don't push out all the people who've supported Clinton because of her tireless work on healthcare, etc. Just be careful, it's a simple request.

  • (Show?)

    Candidates target their lit and materials to the area (or state) they're working in - areas of the South are much more religious and will have religious communities large enough that targeted lit makes sense.

    In Oregon, you're more likely to see lit that is targeted to the issues that we're involved with the most (environment, opposing the Iraq War, etc.). If Oregon were as religious as states in the South, you'd see the same sort of lit here.

    There's no question as to which Obama I voted for - they're the same person. Obama is religious and he's made mention of it plenty of times. In areas that are highly religious, he's going to bring up his faith as a way to connect to other people of faith. The same way that if he meets an environmentalist he's going to discuss the environment.

    For too long we've allowed the right to co-opt religion and make being a politician and a Christian a bad thing. It doesn't have to be.

    This kind of discrimination against those of faith is a huge reason why we lose them to Republicans. We agree with them on many issues (not all people of faith are gay hating pro-lifers who want to blow up abortion clinics), yet they turn to the Republicans because it is the Party that doesn't attack their religion. And to people of faith, there's not much worse of an attack you can make against them.

    This is a big reason why the Faith Caucus was started within the Democratic Party of Oregon so that we can change the perception within the Democratic community that being religious is a bad thing.

  • (Show?)

    Katy,

    Just as you are not attempting to push out Obama supporters for your strong support of Clinton, I'm not attempting to push out Clinton folks by supporting Obama. I'm expressing an opinion, just as you are...As for healthcare, I actually agree with her plan more than Obama's.

    That said, I'm not sure what I need to be "careful" of. When you phrase it that way, it appears as though you're issuing some sort of threat to Obama supporters...

  • Alberto Borges (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton will be our next president.

    God Bless Hillary Clinton

    God Bless America

    Thank you Jesus Christ

  • Alberto Borges (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Welcome to Oregon Hillary Clinton.. Welcome Madam President.

    Alberto

  • Alberto Borges (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary, Hillary, Hillary will be our next president.

    Alberto

  • Unrepentant Liberal (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Alberto. Stop drinking the kool-aid. Just send Mrs. Clinton back to the Senate where she can fight for all those poor and working class Americans she just discovered live in this country and whom she supposedly cares so much about as opposed to all the rich corporate types the DLC'ers loved sucking up to during Bill's administration.

    She talked the talk. Now it's time to walk the walk.

  • Ticking time bomb (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Democrats have made this mistake before by selecting ultra-liberal, untested candidates to be our presidential candidates. They just can't pull off an electoral victory in this country. It just can't happen. I'm sorry, Obama supporters, but if you have your way now, we are certain to lose in November.

    I have 2 words: George McGovern

  • seaparation of church and state (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jenni Simonis, there is a big difference between being a person of faith and putting out campaign lit exclusively on that topic. Vote for me, I am born again. There is nothing more substantive in the literature than that.

    We liberals had a field day when it looked like a Huckabee ad had a cross in the background. More double standards?

    I just have a hard time believing that Obama is going to be as truly pro-choice and pro-gay-rights as he claims. He is so willing to package himself for whichever audience he is targeting, it's frightening.

    before you post a response, check it out for yourself.

    http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy--I am pleased that you are so concerned about intra-party reconciliation and winning in November, but I wonder if you're picking the best forum to express yourself. In a way that complements your effort, I've tried posting comments to blogs that promote a pro-Clinton agenda. Responses tend to be rude and dismissive...just as some of the responses you get here at Blue Oregon are rude and dismissive. I expect we both think that we're simply trying to reach out to the "opposition", but unfortunately the blogosphere is presently in the grip of some sort of collective insanity.

    Perhaps it's best if the cooler heads in the Obama camp be the ones to encourage hot-head Obama supporters to reach out to the "opposition". Perhaps you could be most effective at promoting reconciliation by addressing yourself to hot-head Clinton supporters.

    We all have our bit to do to promote Democratic unity for the fall. I've been open with people about my preference for Obama over Clinton; my friends, neighbors and co-workers who prefer Clinton are open with me. None of us has shouted at the other.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    oh man I WISH!!! (that obama was ultra-liberal that is).

    as it is, he's just progressive enough, AFAIC.

    btw, i have to say i'm pretty confused at the veiled threats from clinton supporters i'm reading all over the blogosphere.

    the way i see it, obama has a lot less to lose from a mccain presidency then most all of the rest of us americans. he's well-educated, wealthy, has a great career, as does his wife, &c.

    like clinton supporters staying home are really going to be punishing him more than themselves by staying home?

  • (Show?)

    I already looked at it. I looked at it the first time it was posted.

    There's not a difference - it is an extension of that faith. He's targeting a very large community in that state. It's a community that us Democrats have largely not only ignored, but regularly insulted. He's using his faith to connect with others in the state. And with all the "he's a Muslim" stuff that is going around, it's definitely a smart move in heavily religious states.

    In 2006, the House Democrats and Future PAC helped put together two faith based radio ads for Rob Brading and Chuck Lee. These ads were run on Christian radio.

    http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/10/democrats_runni.html

    I think the problem is that because right wingers have overly used religion to push limiting people's rights, have tried to push religion into the state, etc. that Democrats have a knee jerk reaction anytime anything regarding faith is brought into the discussion.

  • (Show?)

    The "race42008.com" website clearly is a Republican one though it seems to be a serious one.

    If you read the article it refers to one Obama office out of 16 he's said to have in western Kentucky. This compares to 5 for Clinton -- implicitly perhaps Clinton is focusing on the Appalachian east of the state & Obama is contesting with a regional focus?

    But not his "headquarters," just one office, & the writer is careful to say he doesn't know if it's typical. The reference to older women staffing is interesting in terms of demographic stereotypes.

    It seems fairly obvious to me that this emphasis combines two motives. One is a need to combat the Muslim-baiting and smears of Obama that have been relentless. They've even showed up on BlueOregon a little, and I expect they're more widespread in a state like Kentucky (where my brother lives & works on educational policy for the state legislature. KY like Oregon meet bi-ennially, btw).

    The other would be the positive motive expressed by Jenni & Bill R. I would like to second what Bill R. says. A lot of my past activism has been in Africa advocacy, where the two backbones of the work are people of faith and some trade unions. Likewise in my current anti-war work people of faith are key in the coalitions, & also in the more abiding peace movement.

    For religious people who take activism up, faith often seems to provide a consistency of motivation and work that I sometimes envy, setting a standard I personally rarely meet.

    Actually from a theological standpoint it's quite interesting that Obama, as a member of a Calvinist church (UCC) should put such emphasis on works in the world. This isn't entirely unusual -- certainly there are strong Protestant traditions that make good works not a source of salvation, but a call to what it means to embody faith in this life. But there are other currents too.

    And Becky, this really isn't an area where Hillary Clinton differs. She is a Methodist who among other things is part of conservative, Republican-majority evangelical prayer group in the Senate. Clearly she takes it in a different direction from most of them. But I feel certain that her religion is a serious part of her outlook and motivation.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Folks, regarding the Obama Kentucky mailer that is eliciting such heartburn, please actually look at the pertinent website! It's a right-wing wingnut site where you can get, amongst other things, bios of all the erstwhile GOP candidates. And here are a few comments in the thread about the Obama mailer:

    "I find it crazy that so many voters are opposed to Obama because he’s muslim, took the oath on the Koran, and has an awful Christian pastor called Rev Wright."

    "That picture of Obama speaking on an altar, was that at the 'God damn America' sermon or was it at the 'chickens are coming home to roost' homily?"

    "The Vietnam Vets that talk to me say Obama is a do nothing loud mouth coward and he needs to spend a week in a foxhole eating, drinking, and fighting with body parts, blood, guts, urine, and waste all around him, then he will only know what it means to ware a flag pin...Many more tell me they wish Obama and his God, Country, and the Flag hating bed buddies were in Vietnam because they said they would have left them face down in a rice patty for disrespecting God, Country, and the Flag...."

    "It’s people like me, who have voted Republican on my conservative views (Pro-Gun, Anti-Abortion, Pro-Smaller government) that will make the difference, I personally don’t have a high opinion of blacks. Most are welfare draining, Gang infested, poorly educated, and violent.. but not all."

    Get the picture?

  • Ms Mel Harmon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One thing I would add to this discussion regarding Clinton/Obama suppporters alienating one another....politics is rarely pretty and it's not for the faint of heart. We are all adults here and should act that way.

    Having said that, as adults we are each responsible for our own feelings, actions, and opinions. No can else can make you feel alienated. If you feel alienated, it's your responsibility to own that emotion, deal with it, and move on.

    This is politics. You will NOT like everything said about your candidate. You WILL be disappointed at some point in the candidate you choose, since no one ever agrees with everyone and every issue. You WILL be sucker-punched by something you didn't know about your chosen candidate, either in how they choose to conduct themselves or in something from their past that will rear its ugly head----because, candidates are human. They screw up, say things they don't mean, associate with people they later wish they had never met or that change dramatically over the years----just like you and me and everyone else. And if they are political candidates, they will lie---yes, everyone. The subject and manner of the lie may vary, but everyone in politics lies---hell, most lie to themselves about their chances or they'd never run in the first place.

    So, to everyone out there who says that the other side is alienating them (currently mostly Clinton supporters)---you feel alienated because this was a hard-fought campaign with two strong candidates and yours lost (okay, is about to lose). Whether you get over that or not is up to you. I hope you do because we need the full support of all Dems to get this country back on the right track. If you prefer to stay mad and still vote Dem, frankly I think its your loss since you won't be as involved in the coming victory. But its your choice. No one else owns your emotions or your feelings or is responsible for them. Now put on your big-person panties, deal with it and move on already.

  • (Show?)

    Ms. Harmon,

    I quite agree. I am a Novick and Obama supporter, but if Merkley and Clinton win this thing, I will put aside my disappointment and work for the nominee. It's not about how I feel about the situation, it's about the process.

  • (Show?)

    Ms. Mel Harmon,

    Thank you. That's helpful.

connect with blueoregon